Trenberth's Energy Budget

[wirebender]

first off, this paper demolishes wirebender's claim that no photons can be reflected back at the filament of a flashlight.

It doesn't touch my argument ian, but I suppose you can't be faulted to much for wishing that it did.

second, it demolishes the claim that back radiation can have no effect on the warmer body. if the 'generic' heat is not needed to produce the IR because it is already there, then that heat is freed up to produce higher energy radiation.

It demolishes the 2nd law of thermodynamics? Prove it ian. Lets see your math. For that matter, lets see "your particular version" of the 2nd law of thermodynamics which speaks to net energy flows.

Face it ian, you were wrong from the start, you never had a chance. The laws of physics and nature were against you. As westwall said, you are out of your depth and in order to even begin to grasp how far from the facts you are, you are going to have to get a handle on what a photon actually is. Till you understand that, the rest is going to look like (to quote you) magic.

 

[wirebender]

Notice the way it works at all? No of course not all you did was shout eureka I have done it and go with it... Again... LOL it recycles the heat from the light source through a system designed specifically for the task and does so by redirection.. Jesus IanC...WOW...

Redirection. That's right up ian's alley.

I am going to bow to polarbear here gslack. He clearly makes his living with mathematics every day. I know enough to prove ian wrong (simple laws of physics) but polarbear is in a different league. I don't have time to wade through enough physics texts to speak at polarbear's level even if I were inclined to do so. I would have to give up half my practice and 2/3 of my family life to manage the time it would require.

I am done with ian. At this point, I don't think that it is a matter of him being unable to see that he has been wrong, it is a deliberate unwillingness to see how far out on a limb he is or even admit it as a possibility. The rather rudimentary work I brought dealing with just the SB laws was enough to prove him wrong, polarbear is decorating the cake, gift wrapping it with hand painted wrapping paper and covering the box with elaborate hand tied bows.

ian was asked to do the simple math with a couple of carbon bars and is apparently unable to even do that but still maintains that he is right and we are wrong. He has the faith of a zealot and no amount of actual science can ever penetrate that sort of quasireligious fervor.

Heretics and infidels can never be right even when they are right.

 

[polarbear]

Okay IanC, I`ll write one more post in this quite interesting thread You started here, but I really don`t want to go into "He says she said" arguments,....but the author of the publication You quote did say
that photons are all the same and nobody can tell them apart...and from Your reasoning I could see that maybe not now, but
at some time You did understand photons like that...
If You very carefully scrutinize the way this author is leading the readers to such conclusions, then You can see
where he made the leap that a 10μm photon coming from a 200 K source is the same as a 10μm photon coming from
a 2000 K source to " ALL PHOTONS ARE THE SAME...NOBODY CAN TELL THEM APART"...

And he needs You to go along with him on this leap in order to conjure up a situation where as he says...
"something has to give"....which then turns out to be Kirchoff`s law...because in the end he wants to make a statement that a colder body can heat a hotter one with these "all the same photons" via back-radiation.

You and many others have been vulnerable to this brain hack, because this assertion exploits a gap
in specialized physics schooling....if somebody chose to study for another profession...
and a gap, that many physics books have also when it comes to explaining the nature of electro-magnetic radiation
and TEMPERATURE...

I shall try and close this gap and explain it in less abstract terms , because a gap in understanding is quite similar to a security gap and this brain hack is quite similar to a cyber hack...so let`s try fix it...:

In the end we are talking about TEMPERATURE, so let`s start here.
What exactly is it...?...You have matter consisting of atoms, if You talk about a pure element or
matter consisting of molecules if You are talking about something other than an element...
Lets choose molecules, because this second cooler "black-body" are gasses, and the bone of contention is CO2.

The earth`s surface, the second and "hotter black body"...let`s also stick with molecules here....just for the sake of some oversight and to avoid confusion
So what exactly is going on here when Molecules get "hotter"...?
Well first off they don`t stand still, they can only stand still @ zero motion if they are at a TEMPERATURE of
absolute Zero (0 Kelvin)...
So any temperature increase must be able to accelerate the average speed of this molecular motion.
when that happened a hotter gas either expands or if You don`t let it, will exert more pressure.
In the case of a solid the same is true except it`s from a bit more difficult to impossible...to dis-allow expansion.

Now in this hotter state both Molecules and Atoms have electrons in their outer shell
in orbitals that want to fall back into the least deformed state, ...and the positive charge of the nucleus
in the center is responsible and is the cause for this "fall back"....which then emits photons

As the speeds ( speak TEMPERATURE) of the individual molecules increases the more deformed, these electron orbitals will get....just like cars would behave in collisions...only difference is that Molecules don`t have hard metal shells like colliding cars, but deformable electrons that repell and deform other
electron shells in other molecules that come too close....

So now that we have an understanding of temperature...let`s think about it, if a molecule at a lower speed can "bump" another molecule which is also at a lower speed so that this molecule attains a higher speed...( is getting hotter )....or can a slow speed molecule bump or "rear end "
a fast molecule to make it even go faster...?
And if it could have then we would indeed have to ditch Kirchoff`s 2.nd law

So now that leaves us having to examine if "back-radiation" from a cooler (speak slower) molecule can accelerate the molecular motion (speak temperature) of a hotter molecule.

To resolve this we have to take a look how heat generates radiation.
As we do, let us not forget, that a soon as a "hotter"...(speak faster) molecule emits a photon, which is now the energy carrier for the energy that this previously "hotter" (faster) molecule has just given up energy ...as the deformed orbital relaxed back to the lower energy orbital state.

And when this photon that thermal imaging/spectroscopy sees as a light equivalent ENERGY of
the heat (motion) energy as You measure it with a thermometer
is converted back to heat .....as is the case when it is absorbed by another COOLER molecule

It can only do so much "electron car bumper" damage as the energy equivalent that generated this photon ...and this energy amount is called a wave quantum, .....in terms of our phyisics here ..
this frequency dependent quantum now has to distort the "electron car bumper"...the orbital of a molecule that is absorbing this photon radiation ...and in the end cause this "bumped" molecule to increase in speed ,
...no matter if that speed is molecular motion or increased molecular bond vibrations

Although photons move at the speed of light, remember I told You over and over again, they do not have a "resting mass"...and You can`t envision them as a projectile at the speed of light and having a mass....had they then such light speed fast photon masses coming from a colder source
could accelerate the molecular motion of a hotter molecule ....and we would be in
the "science of doom" and the back-radiation from colder bodies could heat hotter bodies and Kirchoff`s laws would have to be revised...pending of course an actual experiment that proves this assertion..

There have been countless experiments that have shown how our current understanding of wave quantum mechanics is correct.
For example a "smart climatologist" (which is an oxy-moron) might claim
that 10μm photon coming from a 200 K can be seen as a 2000 K source 1μm photon by molecules that streak with enough speed toward the "cooler" back-radiation source.

But that won`t help either, because the observed Doppler shift due to the constant speed of light + the addition of the object speed can not add up to more than the speed of light.

Could this be done, then the "Science of doom" would have also just managed to
"create" a 1μm photon from a 10μm photon that came from a 200 K source
instead of a 2000 K source...

It is not the photon that has been changed...the only thing that changed is what is
being observed as You move into the opposite direction of the 10μm wave propagation

So You see, no matter how You try and arrange these photon absorptions by directional changes of the molecules (or Atoms) there is no way a 10μm can effect the same as a 1μm photon..even when they do appear to be the same because of the Doppler shift...

I hope You can understand now why photons are no exception to Kirchoff`s second law.
Also I did not read EVERYTHING in this thread, because I rather read EVERYTHING
in the phyisics books on my shelves...


I hope after reading this You have an understanding that the "heat radiation" You
can observe as photons is just a snapshot of a process when the heat as You measure
it with a thermometer in degrees Kelvin , (the speed of molecular motion) has been converted from an energy that can be measured in velocity (speed) and mass to an energy form where the mass has disappeared , the speed (c) remains constant as is no longer variable as earlier in this process..and energy must now be expressed in terms of the quantum a 1μm or a 10μm long wave can possibly carry with it.

And when this photon is absorbed and shows up again as heat the way a
thermometer can measure it can only have so much of a "speed effect" on
the existing mass that absorbed this photon...and no more "speed" as
the process that generated this photon had...

So there is no way a slower -10 C system can make the faster +10 C system even faster in any way...and that includes the transition from heat motion to photon and then back again

And also let`s be clear about this "slowing the loss of heat"....
This is not the issue here, the issue was that "climatology" claims
that a colder body can HEAT a hotter one.


I don`t know if wirebender or somebody else made a mistake...and if indeed
he made one...I can assure You that his mistake is in no comparison as the
mistakes in the "science of doom"...
I also make mistakes, but that does in no way get subtracted from what I do
know about physics...the way a cynic would like to discredit in science as if it were politics
But You see, this is exactly how this lefty debating tactic wants to work it..
Somebody made a mistake and now they want to use that like a debit card
and a bank account..and subtract from the knowledge of physics brain cells account

I have no problem with the mistakes I can spot in the "science of doom" and
the "colder body photon back-radiation can heat a hotter body" publications
that are all over the internet lately...each is just a copy of another...including
the mistakes in the math & the numbers have been copied...that`s what
"climatology" calles "peer review"...!!!!!......But I do have a problem when
this crap is being used to do brain hacking attacks on people who just had to study something other than quantum physics to make an honest living..

 

[polarbear]

@ IanC
Now after having read what I just posted before, perhaps You will read this text with a whole new visual ability[SIZE=+2]
and please pay extra attention to the words I highlighted in red.!!!! :
[/SIZE]Photon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The modern concept of the photon was developed gradually by Albert Einstein to explain experimental observations that did not fit the classical wave model of light. In particular, the photon model accounted for the frequency dependence of light's energy, and explained the ability of matter and radiation to be in thermal equilibrium. It also accounted for anomalous observations, including the properties of black body radiation, that other physicists, most notably Max Planck, had sought to explain using semiclassical models, in which light is still described by Maxwell's equations, but the material objects that emit and absorb light are quantized. Although these semiclassical models contributed to the development of quantum mechanics, further experiments[2][3] validated Einstein's hypothesis that light itself is quantized; the quanta of light are photons.In the Standard Model of particle physics, photons are described as a necessary consequence of physical laws having a certain symmetry at every point in spacetime. The intrinsic properties of photons, such as charge, mass and spin, are determined by the properties of this gauge symmetry.
The neutrino theory of light, which attempts to describe the photon as a composite structure, has been unsuccessful so far.

So, please don`t cement Your feet in the position, that "climatology" tries to convince You what a photon is..even Max Planck does not have it right, as has been proven by Einstein..
As for these few short wavelength photons that a colder body seemingly emitted,...You know the few that appear under the Gaussian statistical curve of Planck`s distribution...let me remind You again that also in a "black-body" the molecules or atoms that emitted these "hotter" photons are in motion...randomly in all direction...
So from any angle You would have atoms or molecules moving in this direction at the thermal "speed"...the TEMPERATURE these black body molecules are...

And now You get a Doppler shifted photon that appears to have a shorter wavelength...and these are the few ones appearing under the Planck distribution curve.
A Doppler shifted photon is not the same as a photon that has a shorter wavelength...without having been Doppler shifted...
Modern physics takes all that into account in the ongoing experimentation at the CERN Hadron collider...
Unfortunately it is not possible to accelerate photons as You can nuclear particles , but You can accelerate particles and then have these emit light later, You collide them and observe every photon energy quantum and particle fragment that has been generated...
and in the case of the photons the Doppler shift is taken into account..
In Your Planck`s distribution curves for various temperatures it is not taken into account...
Remember that, the next time You quote somebody who is trying to pull the wool over Your eyes again,...with that a 10 μm photon coming from a 200 K source is the same as one coming from a 2000 K source and then leaps from there to how a thermodynamical slower 200 K system can speed up a thermodynamical faster 2000 K system if You use photons as (back) radiation instead of thermal heat exchange via heat flow...which certainly will never happen from colder to hotter..So to make the case for this imaginary man made CO2 based dooms day pseudo science these "climatology photons" that fit into these assertions had been created with nothing more than word-games and number-less "examples" that exist only on paper and only in the minds of people that may have heard of Einstein, but never studied, pondered and fully understood what he actually wrote

 

[James_Of_Gala]

Shall we start with arithmetic

6.6^(-34) * 3^8 * 10^5 = 19.8^(-21) = 1.98^(-20)

any comments?

 

[polarbear]

Shall we start with arithmetic

6.6^(-34) * 3^8 * 10^5 = 19.8^(-21) = 1.98^(-20)

any comments?

6.6^(-34) * 3^8 * 10^5 = 4.33026 ^(-25) not 1.98^(-20)

any comments?

 

[James_Of_Gala]

Er OK let's use a less abbreviated notation

6.6*10^(-34) * 3*10^8 * 10^5 = 1.98*10^(-20)

comments?

 

[polarbear]

Er OK let's use a less abbreviated notation

6.6*10^(-34) * 3*10^8 * 10^5 = 1.98*10^(-20)

comments?

Hey 3*10^8 is not the same as 3^8
3^8 =6561
and 3*10^8=300000000

And You did say 3^8 not 3 *10^8

Shall we start with arithmetic

6.6^(-34) * 3^8 * 10^5 = 19.8^(-21) = 1.98^(-20)

any comments?

We all make mistakes...I`m no exception either, and I also know where I made it..
I have a "quick launch" for windows cale.exe...when I`m too lazy or too tired...I use it
But...!!! take a look at it how small the * and the - sign is...
they both look like dots to me unless I wear my reading glasses

anyway for 6.6*10^(-34) *10^5 I don`t need glasses or a calculator.. I can read my screens large type font okay...that`s 6.6*10^(-29)
and with my glasses on if I multiply that by the 3^8 (=6561) as You did have it,... :
6561 * 6.6 * (10^(-29)) = 4.33026 × 10^(-25)

I know full well You are not a dummy, and I also know that You meant 3*10^8 instead of 3^8...because the speed of light c is certainly not 3^8 meters per second...
But as far as I`m concerned we are even now,...I f`d up not seeing one decimal point in the correct position without my glasses and I also know that 19.8 *10(-21) is the same as 1.98 *(-20)
But I think You would agree that Your "c" = 3^8 missed the mark by quite a bit more...
Imagine what that would be like, if the speed of light would be that slow, 6.5 km per second..why worry about any kind of radiation..

I`m not trying to pull Your leg or call You down...because I know full well how easily something like that can happen...

For example how often does that happen...: You write a capitol letter and Your left hand finger is still on the shift key...and oops you typed a "(" instead of the number 9
On top of that more often than not I loose everything I type in here quite often because our server here keeps dropping the connections...and as of tomorrow where we live there is no more high speed server...no more e-mail...no more Internet period....
We are way out of range from all the other wireless servers and the only other option would be to open a new account and use the telephone & a 50Kb slooooow modem...
That`s Okay...I rather live way out in the country, no cable TV and such than in the city,...the only thing that`s faster there is the Internet but certainly not the traffic.!!
So have fun without me

 

[IanC]

polarbear- I enjoyed your bumpercar analogy.

I have a specific request for information, if you know where to find it. Conduction is the amalgam of energy transfer by physical and radiation means. do you know of a source that gives the relative efficiencies of conduction at a boundary and radiation at a boundary, so that you could subtract the radiation portion of conduction and get a rough idea of the kinetic energy portion of conduction?

I still have a problem with you claiming that SOD said a 200K source could warm a 2000K body, he didnt. nor did he say that 10 micron photons were being tranfered into 1 micron photons. he was describing two bodies of relatively equal temperatures, and how naturally occuring higher energy photons from the cooler surface would impact the local area of the warmer surface.

your other point was that a low energy photon couldnt make a molecule go faster, which is true, but it can alter the direction of the molecule by adding a sideways component. I also doubt that the relatavistic events that you brought into the conversation are a meaningful factor in the low energy/low temperature scenarios that we are discussing.

 

[James_Of_Gala]

OK so we agree what the energy of a 10 micron photon is, now that I have sorted out my nottaion.

That's a minor point though. What I really wanted was to ask a simple question. Supposing you have a single photon, just one photon all by itself, how do you know the temperature of the source from which it originated? (assuming it did originate by a temperature dependent mechanism, as it may not have)

 

[IanC]

there are no labels on photons to identify their source. and photons do not disappear until they interact with matter.

 

[gslack]

This will be my last post on this topic...

Its called entropy fellas.. It does not require the energy to know whence it came or the temperature from its origin. Energy flows out from its source it doesn't decide to do this after some thought, nor does it check to see if its starting point is hotter than its destination. Just as the destination does not check the temperature of incoming energy sources to be sure its indeed correct in accepting it.

The claim you two are making is just nonsensical... Does a golf ball check the air and ground before or after a club hits it to see if it can overcome the resistance and forces acting against it? Does it check the force of that club hitting it before leaving and then decide how far to go? Or does the action of the club hitting and your decision in swinging that club make those things happen? I don't think the ball had much of a choice in the matter do you?

By the thinking showed by you two (or you alone, lets be honest here) we have to be ready to accept the "feelings" or "thoughts" of matter or energy in all things.. Nice try.. Not really, more like nice try at BS...

Why don't you go and google up proof of back radiation and see what you find. You won't find any proof of it, you will find a few papers claiming it possible in perfect conditions (that do not exist outside of theory) and only mathematically. However you will find many papers showing it doesn't happen naturally and they will be based on real world observation and experiments.

 

[IanC]

interesting. if you substitute a CO2 molecule for the golfer then you are supporting my position. the photon doesnt care where it came from or where it is going, it just goes. and sometimes it goes to the earth's surface and adds to the pool of energy. it doesnt heat the surface because the net flow is outwards but it does slow the flow of outward radiation by cancelling out (edit-the net effect of) a simular outbound photon.

 

[wirebender]

interesting. if you substitute a CO2 molecule for the golfer then you are supporting my position. the photon doesnt care where it came from or where it is going, it just goes. and sometimes it goes to the earth's surface and adds to the pool of energy. it doesnt heat the surface because the net flow is outwards but it does slow the flow of outward radiation by cancelling out (edit-the net effect of) a simular outbound photon.

The ball moves in the direction propagated by the greater force just as the IR emitted by the CO2 molecule. It is subtracted from the EM field emitted by the earth and as such, diminishes the field by that amount, but alas, never reaches the surface.

 

[IanC]

interesting. if you substitute a CO2 molecule for the golfer then you are supporting my position. the photon doesnt care where it came from or where it is going, it just goes. and sometimes it goes to the earth's surface and adds to the pool of energy. it doesnt heat the surface because the net flow is outwards but it does slow the flow of outward radiation by cancelling out (edit-the net effect of) a simular outbound photon.

The ball moves in the direction propagated by the greater force just as the IR emitted by the CO2 molecule. It is subtracted from the EM field emitted by the earth and as such, diminishes the field by that amount, but alas, never reaches the surface.

you seem quite certain of this and I have no doubt that you believe it. all I am asking for is some independent confirmation and an explanation of how it happens and where it happens. I have already asked whether it happens inside the CO2 molecule, enroute to the surface, or at the surface but you have refused to give any details of this process that seems to contradict the known rules of physics. could you just give a few more details so that we mere mortals might learn at the feet of the master?

 

[wirebender]

you seem quite certain of this and I have no doubt that you believe it. all I am asking for is some independent confirmation and an explanation of how it happens and where it happens. I have already asked whether it happens inside the CO2 molecule, enroute to the surface, or at the surface but you have refused to give any details of this process that seems to contradict the known rules of physics. could you just give a few more details so that we mere mortals might learn at the feet of the master?

ian, I have answered all your questions ad nauseum. As I have said, you won't find much information on the how because the how is not understood. The fact that opposing EM fields reduce each other's magnitude however is well known, observable, and repeatable science. The energy can not be destroyed but is gone none the less. Since the energy is composed of its carrier, ie photons, it is the number of photons that is being diminished.

As I have said before, till you get off the mistaken idea of photons as independent discrete free agent particles and accept and embrace wave particle duality, you aren't going to be able to understand this and it will remain a mystery to you but it will allow you to hold to your belief that somehow the 2nd law of thermodynamics is being violated by individual photons emitted by CO2 molecules moving against the overwhelming magnitude of the EM field radiated away from the surface of the earth.

I have told you that it does not happen inside the molecule which is why your incessant harping on virtual photons is useless as virtual photons are confned to the boundries of the atom or molecule.

I will not go over this with you any further. Each and every one of your questions has been answered over and over. Asking again is not going to change the answers. If you want to review them, you are welcome to go back over this thread and the other threads in which this topic has been discussed. You will never win a discussion ian, by going over and over points that you have already lost.

By the way, subtraction of EM fields is supported and predicted by the 2nd law of thermodynamics. The 2nd law states explicitly that it is not possible for energy to flow from cool objects to warm objects. Regardless of of your belief in net flows, the 2nd law doesn't say anything about net flows. It states that energy will not flow from cool to warm. The subtraction of EM fields resulting in no energy flow from cool to warm is precisely in accord with the laws of physics.

It is your terribly flawed understanding of the laws of physics and your gross misunderstanding of what photons are and your refusal to accept wave particle duality that leaves you in the dark ian and that fact is not going to change till you change.

I have asked you over and over which law of physics you believe supports your beliefs regarding energy transfer and you can not state one since none either support or predict what you believe happens. Let me know when you get something new or come around to actually being willing to accept what is happening with regard to the tiny EM field radiated by a CO2 molecule vs the overwhelming EM field radiated by the surface of the earth.

 

[IanC]

you seem quite certain of this and I have no doubt that you believe it. all I am asking for is some independent confirmation and an explanation of how it happens and where it happens. I have already asked whether it happens inside the CO2 molecule, enroute to the surface, or at the surface but you have refused to give any details of this process that seems to contradict the known rules of physics. could you just give a few more details so that we mere mortals might learn at the feet of the master?

ian, I have answered all your questions ad nauseum. As I have said, you won't find much information on the how because the how is not understood. The fact that opposing EM fields reduce each other's magnitude however is well known, observable, and repeatable science. The energy can not be destroyed but is gone none the less. Since the energy is composed of its carrier, ie photons, it is the number of photons that is being diminished.

As I have said before, till you get off the mistaken idea of photons as independent discrete free agent particles and accept and embrace wave particle duality, you aren't going to be able to understand this and it will remain a mystery to you but it will allow you to hold to your belief that somehow the 2nd law of thermodynamics is being violated by individual photons emitted by CO2 molecules moving against the overwhelming magnitude of the EM field radiated away from the surface of the earth.

I have told you that it does not happen inside the molecule which is why your incessant harping on virtual photons is useless as virtual photons are confned to the boundries of the atom or molecule.

I will not go over this with you any further. Each and every one of your questions has been answered over and over. Asking again is not going to change the answers. If you want to review them, you are welcome to go back over this thread and the other threads in which this topic has been discussed. You will never win a discussion ian, by going over and over points that you have already lost.

By the way, subtraction of EM fields is supported and predicted by the 2nd law of thermodynamics. The 2nd law states explicitly that it is not possible for energy to flow from cool objects to warm objects. Regardless of of your belief in net flows, the 2nd law doesn't say anything about net flows. It states that energy will not flow from cool to warm. The subtraction of EM fields resulting in no energy flow from cool to warm is precisely in accord with the laws of physics.

It is your terribly flawed understanding of the laws of physics and your gross misunderstanding of what photons are and your refusal to accept wave particle duality that leaves you in the dark ian and that fact is not going to change till you change.

I have asked you over and over which law of physics you believe supports your beliefs regarding energy transfer and you can not state one since none either support or predict what you believe happens. Let me know when you get something new or come around to actually being willing to accept what is happening with regard to the tiny EM field radiated by a CO2 molecule vs the overwhelming EM field radiated by the surface of the earth.

you have not answered my questions, you have ducked them ad nauseum. at least this time you admitted that you have no explanation for how or where the photons disappear.

lets move on to the next question then. you have repeatedly stated that if even one photon returned to earth that would be a violation of the second law. this is one of your fallacies that I have called you on before. microscopic vs macroscopic. where did you learn that the second law was in effect for single particles rather than for macroscopic systems made up of vast numbers of particles and positions? its not in any physics text I have read. the arrow of time, entropy only works with systems not individual particles or photons. there is no prefered position for one molecule of dye in a container of liquid, and there is no law that prohibits a large amount of dye from all being in one portion of the container either, except for the fantastically long odds of it happening.

the photons emitted from the earth have next to zero effect on the photons emitted from the atmosphere. all of the photons reach their destination, whether it is the surface, open space or a particle in the atmosphere. the cancelling out in the Stefan-Boltzmann equation is simply a mathematical calculation. there is simply a one-to-one replacement of the radiation from the cooler body. you subtract the data set of radiation from the cooler body with an identical set from the warmer body, and the radiation left over is the net flow. no photons were destroyed magically in their flight through space to their destination.
the second law is true because there is always more radiation produced by a warmer body. this is a trivial result that can easily be seen by comparing Planck curves for bodies of differing temperatures.

virtual photons carry the energy in electric and magnetic fields. if they find a particle to interact with then they become real, otherwise they are reabsorbed. where would the energy come from that is necessary to send photons in every direction and at all times if the unused ones continued to exist? I am OK if you just want to say that we dont understand electric and magnetic fields except to calculate the force but if you want to explain how it physically happens then you need virtual photons. that is the difference between reactive and radiative photons. radiative photons are paid in advance, reactive virtual photons are only paid if something buys them during the short term 'sale'.

 

[wirebender]

I have explained to you ad nauseum ian and have ducked nothing. We are finished. My proofs stand and you have failed at every attempt to prove a point. Repeating the same thing over and over to you is both boring and pointless.

By the way, virtual photons only exist within the confines of an atom or molecule. They carry EM fields from electrons to protons or neutrons. That is it. They have no place in discussions on the topic of EM fields outside atoms or molecules. It doesn't matter at this point. I consign you to your faith.

 

[IanC]

I have explained to you ad nauseum ian and have ducked nothing. We are finished. My proofs stand and you have failed at every attempt to prove a point. Repeating the same thing over and over to you is both boring and pointless.

By the way, virtual photons only exist within the confines of an atom or molecule. They carry EM fields from electrons to protons or neutrons. That is it. They have no place in discussions on the topic of EM fields outside atoms or molecules. It doesn't matter at this point. I consign you to your faith.

as you wish. I still laugh that you refused to disclose your 'proof'. do you still claim that it is back in some unnamed thread on some unnamed page? you admitted that you knew were it was but I imagine it wasnt quite the artistic piece of work you thought it was back when you dared everyone to prove your math wrong. hahahaha.

 

[IanC]

ian, I have answered all your questions ad nauseum. As I have said, you won't find much information on the how because the how is not understood. The fact that opposing EM fields reduce each other's magnitude however is well known, observable, and repeatable science. The energy can not be destroyed but is gone none the less. Since the energy is composed of its carrier, ie photons, it is the number of photons that is being diminished.

is this the magnum opus that you have been talking about? the grand explanation?hahahahaha. the how is not understood? hahahahaha